So I'm having some difficulty grasping some stuff about meta rules.
Maybe now that I've got 350 lines of local spamassassin config, it's
time for me to delve into the source and join the devel list or
something, but let's see if I can figure this out.
I suspect my problem is related to the order
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 05:09:57PM -0500, Jeremy Nixon wrote:
I suspect my problem is related to the order in which meta rules are
evaluated, or the legality of nesting them. Is there some limit to
the depth to which meta rules can be nested inside other meta rules?
I had one like meta __RULE
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 05:45:31PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
I'll look at the code and see what I can come up with. I'd think, as you
say, a strategically placed sort() would do the trick for the time being.
Ok, I cleaned up the do_meta code a little bit and added in the
strategic sort. :)
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 06:27:47PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Ok, I cleaned up the do_meta code a little bit and added in the
strategic sort. :)
Ok again, after fussing around with do_meta tonight, I figured out that
it wouldn't be hard to put in the full dependency algorithm, so I coded
it
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 06:27:47PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Ok, I cleaned up the do_meta code a little bit and added in the
strategic sort. :)
I first tried changing the line
my @tests = keys %{$self-{conf}{meta_tests}};
to just sort the keys, but that explodes badly -- you pretty
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 11:56:29PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
So in 2.50 now, naming doesn't matter now for meta meta dependencies;
the code will figure out what order to run the tests in, including
circular dependencies, and do the right thing. :)
Way cool, thanks.
-Jeremy
